공정거래법에 의한 지적재산권 남용 규제: 비판과 대안의 제시
Regulating Abuse of Intellectual Property Right by the Anti-Monopoly and Fair Trade Act: Criticism and alternative suggestion
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The rigid regulatory enforcement of Antitrust Law alone would wither the intellectual property rights system itself and cause the contraction of innovation. Thus, the standard of undue exercise of intellectual property has to be used in the purpose of intellectual property law. In this regard, the author strongly believes that Antitrust Law should be applied to regulate 'IP Misuse'. However, in reality, the Fair Trade Commission's lack of expertise and manpower is predictable enough in the patent area of sharp conflict of technological ideologies. Therefore, the IP Misuse is bound to be a remedial relief in the enforcement of Antitrust Law. Many empirical studies of the economy warn that without competition, intellectual property rights would be strengthened excessively and rather slow the rate of innovation. The best innovation of intellectual property can be realized only when the protection of intellectual property is maintained proportionally spaced from the competition policy. Therefore, it is the author's view that Antitrust Law needs to regulate the misuse of intellectual property rights. Particularly industries related to intellectual property are changing so fast that urgent relief measures will be essential. It is because it usually takes months or years before the Fair Trade Commission investigates and takes corrective actions, and the court decides on the case. Thus, there are high concerns on effectiveness and time. In addition, market timing is an absolutely critical matter in intellectual property-related industries. Where a potential market entrant is discouraged to enter into the market due to a collective refusal to deal with a potential competitor to market, the market enterpriser would have no choice but to abandon the relevant business unless the refusal to deal is banned immediately. So, the resulting damage in the form of compensation for damages is hard to prove it in practice since there is lack of economic motives in the claim to increase the chance of monetary damages. In light of this problem, Antitrust Law should introduce 'private action for injunction under Antitrust Law' to allow the claim of those who are likely to be inflicted with injury or damage to the court to injunct the unlawful act. More over, Intellectual property rights are usually associated with the highly specialized area of the industrial sector and it is not easy for the Fair Trade Commission to recognize the violation of law. In other words, it is hard to find the best solution to promote competition. Accordingly, it is necessary to introduce the consent order to investigate and deliberate process of self-corrective measures proposed by enterprisers. When the competition authority recognizes the validity of the corrective measures, the competition authorities will close the case quickly without investigating the violation of law.
Abstract
The rigid regulatory enforcement of Antitrust Law alone would wither the intellectual property rights system itself and cause the contraction of innovation. Thus, the standard of undue exercise of intellectual property has to be used in the purpose of intellectual property law. In this regard, the author strongly believes that Antitrust Law should be applied to regulate 'IP Misuse'. However, in reality, the Fair Trade Commission's lack of expertise and manpower is predictable enough in the patent area of sharp conflict of technological ideologies. Therefore, the IP Misuse is bound to be a remedial relief in the enforcement of Antitrust Law. Many empirical studies of the economy warn that without competition, intellectual property rights would be strengthened excessively and rather slow the rate of innovation. The best innovation of intellectual property can be realized only when the protection of intellectual property is maintained proportionally spaced from the competition policy. Therefore, it is the author's view that Antitrust Law needs to regulate the misuse of intellectual property rights. Particularly industries related to intellectual property are changing so fast that urgent relief measures will be essential. It is because it usually takes months or years before the Fair Trade Commission investigates and takes corrective actions, and the court decides on the case. Thus, there are high concerns on effectiveness and time. In addition, market timing is an absolutely critical matter in intellectual property-related industries. Where a potential market entrant is discouraged to enter into the market due to a collective refusal to deal with a potential competitor to market, the market enterpriser would have no choice but to abandon the relevant business unless the refusal to deal is banned immediately. So, the resulting damage in the form of compensation for damages is hard to prove it in practice since there is lack of economic motives in the claim to increase the chance of monetary damages. In light of this problem, Antitrust Law should introduce 'private action for injunction under Antitrust Law' to allow the claim of those who are likely to be inflicted with injury or damage to the court to injunct the unlawful act. More over, Intellectual property rights are usually associated with the highly specialized area of the industrial sector and it is not easy for the Fair Trade Commission to recognize the violation of law. In other words, it is hard to find the best solution to promote competition. Accordingly, it is necessary to introduce the consent order to investigate and deliberate process of self-corrective measures proposed by enterprisers. When the competition authority recognizes the validity of the corrective measures, the competition authorities will close the case quickly without investigating the violation of law.
참고문헌 (48)
- 권오승, "경제법" (2008), 법문사
- 송영식, "지적소유권법(상), 제8판" (2003), 육법사
- 이상경, "지적재산권소송법" (1998), 육법사
- 정호열, "경제법 제2판" (2008), 박영사
- 정상조, "지적재산권법" (2004), 홍문사
- 조영선, "특허법" (2006), 박영사
- 공정거래법 집행제도의 개선방안, "김두진", 한국법제연구원, ~ (2003)
- 지적재산권과 관련한 독점규제법의 적용 연구, "김두진", 한국법제연구원, ~ (2004)
- 이경규, "지적재산권 남용의 규제와 독점규제법의 적용에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.2001
- 공정거래법상 금지청구와 손해배상청구, "장승화", 대외경제정책연구원, ~ (2001)
- 공정거래법상 사인의 금지청구제도 도입방안 연구, "장승화", 공정거래위원회 연구용역보고서, ~ (2005)
- 미국판례법으로서의 저작권남용항변에 관한 연구, "최은희", 컴퓨터프로그램 심의조정위원회, ~ (2004)
- 곽상현, "공정거래법의 집행과 금지청구제도- 미국의 판례 및 도입과 관련된 쟁점을 중심으로", 법조, 56(4), pp.80~145 (2007), 법조협회
- 구재군, "지적재산권과 독점금지법의 관계-독점규제법 제59조의 해석론과 관 련하여", 사법행정, 41(7) (2000)
- 김두진, "공정거래법상 동의명령제 도입방안 연구", 비교사법, 16(4), pp.311~370 (2009), 한국비교사법학회
- 김두진, "공정거래위원회의 결정유형의 개선방안에 관한 고찰", 상사판례연구, 23(2), pp.325~357 (2010), 한국상사판례학회
- 김두진, "한국독점규제법의 집행", 경쟁법연구, 12 (2005), 한국경쟁법학회
- 김차동, "공정거래법의 사적집행제도의 변경 및 그 보완방안", 경쟁법연구, 11 (2005), 한국경쟁법학회
- 백형기, "라이선스 남용과 독점규제법 적용의 한계 - 영미의 사례를 중심으로", 기업법연구, 20(2), pp.71~88 (2006), 한국기업법학회
- 백형기, "지적재산권법과 독점규제법의 충돌과 조화", 정보화정책, 13(4), pp.37~51 (2006), 한국정보화진흥원
- 설 민 수, "지적재산권 사용계약에 대한 거래거절에 관한 미국과 EU에서의 공정거래법 적용", 저스티스, (101), pp.60~107 (2007), 한국법학원
- 송근장, "독점금지법상 지적재산권의 행사-각국의 입법 례와 국내, ETRI의 상황", 지적소유권법연구, 2 (1998), 지적소유권 학회
- 손영화, "지적재산권에 대한 공정거래법의 적용", 판례월보, 361 (2000)
- 신영수, "美國 獨占禁止法上의 同意命令制度에 관한 考察", 기업법연구, 19(4), pp.489~516 (2005), 한국기업법학회
- 안효질, "지적재산권의 간접침해와 남용이론", 재산법연구, 23(2), pp.419~465 (2006), 한국재산법학회
- 오승한, "지적재산권 라이센스의 배타적 조건에 대한 독점금지법의 위법성 판단- 독점금지법의 동태적 효율성 분석을 중심으로", 비교사법, 13(1), pp.739~786 (2006), 한국비교사법학회
- 오승한, "특허·저작권법의 기본목적과 정책에 대한 경제적 분석 및 독점금지법의 경쟁정책과의 비교", 상사판례연구, 18(3), pp.247~287 (2005), 한국상사판례학회
- 윤권순, "특허괴물의 현상 분석과 특허제도의 본질에 대한 고찰", 창작과 권리, (58), pp.1~39 (2010), 세창출판사
- 윤세리, "미국 독점금지법상의 사소제도", 쟁법연구, 9 (2003), 한국경쟁법학 회,
- 이문지, "미국의 지적재산권 남용 규제", 기업법연구, (17), pp.283~322 (2004), 한국기업법학회
- 이봉의, "경쟁법 집행의 개선; 공정거래법의 실효적 집행", 경쟁법연구, 10 (2004), 한국경쟁법학회
- 장정애, "지적재산권의 독점규제법상 예외조항에 관한 고찰: 미국법과 비교를 중심으로", 산업재산권, (28), pp.263~291 (2009), 한국산업재산권법학회
- 정 진 근, "공정거래법(경쟁법)에 의한 특허풀 규제: 비판과 대안의 제시", 경영법률, 15(2), pp.65~107 (2005), 한국경영법률학회
- 최병규, "지적재산권법과 독점규제법의 관계", 지식재산21, 56 (1999), 특허 청
- 최승재, "특허권남용법리의 역사적 전개와 독점금지법", 중앙대학교 개교90주 년 기념 제5회 「문화산업과 법」국제학술대회 자료집 (2008)
- 홍준형, "공정거래법상 동의명령제 도입방안에 대한 연구", 기업법연구, 21(4), pp.86~114 (2007), 한국기업법학회
- American Bar Association, "Antitrust Law Developments(Fifth edition, Volume I.)" (2002)
- Herbert HovenKamp, "Federal Antitrust Policy: The Law of Competition and Its Practice, 3rd ed", pp.2005, THOMSON
- Herbert Hovenkamp, "The Antitrust Enterprise : Principle and Execution" (2005), Harvard University Press
- Roger E. Schechter, "Intellectual Property: The Law of Copyrights, Patent and Trademarks", pp.2003, THOMSON
- Giles S. Rich, "The relation between patent practices and the anti-monopoly laws", Fed. Circuit B.J, 14, pp.5~ (2004)
- Cedric A. D’Hue, "Disclosing an improper verb tense: Are scientists knaves and patent attorneys jackals regarding the effects of inequitable conduct?", U. Balt. Intell. Prop. L. J, 14, pp.121~ (2006)
- U.S. Department of Justice, "Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition", ~ (2007)
- U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, "Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property", ~ (1995)
- 東出浩一, "独占禁止法違反行爲に対する私人による差止訴訟制度の導入につい て", 公正取引, 580 (1999)
- 大橋敏道, "独占禁止法の差止請求制度-法施行後6年目における判例と理論の問 題点-”", 福岡大学法学論叢, 52(1) (2007)
- 岩本章吾, "知的財産権と独占禁止法, 独禁法解釈論の再検討序說" (2008), 晃洋書房
- 金炳学, "知的財産権侵害差止請求における訴訟物の特定と執行手続について", 法 政研究, 72(3) (2006), 九州大学